Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

The man is clueless enough when it comes to running his own country without thinking about other ones.

It seems Britain and France -- by no coincidence the two most recent imperialist powers in the EU -- are leading the way in calling for the arming of the "rebels".

Hollande is particularly hilarious in his claim that they would get "assurances" from the secular "rebels" that their arms won't go to al-Qaida-linked groups. Who does he think he's kidding?

Here's a better idea. How about the EU puts pressure on the Russian gov to stop arming the tyrannical Assad regime, who use said weaponry to massacre the people of Syria? If the Kremlin refuses then providing legitimate means for the populace to defend themselves against the dictator Assad is the only real alternative.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Dojo

Here's a better idea. How about the EU puts pressure on the Russian gov to stop arming the tyrannical Assad regime, who use said weaponry to massacre the people of Syria? If the Kremlin refuses then providing legitimate means for the populace to defend themselves against the dictator Assad is the only real alternative.

I would welcome it if both sides stopped arming their respective proxies in Syria as they reduce the country to rubble, but it's inaccurate to say that the West is "arming the populace" to overthrow Assad. It was when protests against the regime were peaceful that they had mass popular support. Since the conflict has escalated, support for the "rebels"/terrorists has dwindled. They are in no way representative of the Syrian population, and nor is it easy for Syrians to assert themselves amongst the rebel/terrorist forces and make their wishes known to them, as they were last December cobbled together into a grouping by the US in a hotel in, if I remember correctly, Qatar: they are hardly under the control of the Syrian people. Even the UN acknolweded in a report last December that this is no longer a popular uprising, but should instead be classified as a sectarian civil war.

Aside from the Washington DC, some of their members take orders from al-Qaida and other radical Islamist forces. The Syrian rebel/terrorist forces are fast becoming a magnet for radical Islam internationally and their success could see the entire region plunged into bloodbath as Iran and Lebannon have assembled a large reserve force ready to try and re-take Syria, and it will not take much for Iraq to be tipped back into sectarian civil war if the conflict spreads. It isn't a simple case of defending the people of Syria, but of adding fuel to the flames of a sectarian conflict that could potentially engulf the whole Middle East.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Ceannaire

I would welcome it if both sides stopped arming their respective proxies in Syria as they reduce the country to rubble, but it's inaccurate to say that the West is "arming the populace" to overthrow Assad. It was when protests against the regime were peaceful that they had mass popular support. Since the conflict has escalated, support for the "rebels"/terrorists has dwindled. They are in no way representative of the Syrian population, and nor is it easy for Syrians to assert themselves amongst the rebel/terrorist forces and make their wishes known to them, as they were last December cobbled together into a grouping by the US in a hotel in, if I remember correctly, Qatar: they are hardly under the control of the Syrian people. Even the UN acknolweded in a report last December that this is no longer a popular uprising, but should instead be classified as a sectarian civil war.

Aside from the Washington DC, some of their members take orders from al-Qaida and other radical Islamist forces. The Syrian rebel/terrorist forces are fast becoming a magnet for radical Islam internationally and their success could see the entire region plunged into bloodbath as Iran and Lebannon have assembled a large reserve force ready to try and re-take Syria, and it will not take much for Iraq to be tipped back into sectarian civil war if the conflict spreads. It isn't a simple case of defending the people of Syria, but of adding fuel to the flames of a sectarian conflict that could potentially engulf the whole Middle East.

A certain amount of truth in that, though I'm unsure why you place quotes around "rebels", but not "terrorists". The truth is Assad has lost all rights to govern. He is brutally murdering the majority Sunni people, who are unfortunately being driven into the arms of Al Qaeda militants. Syrian based militants are now linking up with former Baathist Sunnis in Iraq with the resulting quagmire turning rapidly into a general Middle East wide Sunni/Shia civil war.

I'm not sure it's wise for NATO and SCO forces to be using the Arab states as their proxy for the latest round of the east/west global Cold War. It would be better if the UN were to intervene, install a new government and flood the country with peace-keepers to get the guns of the streets. Of course Assad will never agree to this, neither will the rebels in all likelihood. What is inevitable is more bloodshed unfortunately, with Syria the new Balkans.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

The collapse of the supportive Lebanese goverment and the Arab League's move to have Assad replaced by the American leader of the Syrian opposition Hitta in Syria's representation in the body both will make a Western invasion more likely.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Ceannaire

I would welcome it if both sides stopped arming their respective proxies in Syria as they reduce the country to rubble, but it's inaccurate to say that the West is "arming the populace" to overthrow Assad. It was when protests against the regime were peaceful that they had mass popular support. Since the conflict has escalated, support for the "rebels"/terrorists has dwindled. They are in no way representative of the Syrian population, and nor is it easy for Syrians to assert themselves amongst the rebel/terrorist forces and make their wishes known to them, as they were last December cobbled together into a grouping by the US in a hotel in, if I remember correctly, Qatar: they are hardly under the control of the Syrian people. Even the UN acknolweded in a report last December that this is no longer a popular uprising, but should instead be classified as a sectarian civil war.

Aside from the Washington DC, some of their members take orders from al-Qaida and other radical Islamist forces. The Syrian rebel/terrorist forces are fast becoming a magnet for radical Islam internationally and their success could see the entire region plunged into bloodbath as Iran and Lebannon have assembled a large reserve force ready to try and re-take Syria, and it will not take much for Iraq to be tipped back into sectarian civil war if the conflict spreads. It isn't a simple case of defending the people of Syria, but of adding fuel to the flames of a sectarian conflict that could potentially engulf the whole Middle East.

Sad but true. But I think that opposition to Assad has not diminished, but been crushed, pushed underground or to the background. The peaceful opposition was diverse but did not want civil war or invasion. Both have been ramped up by stealth, by outside forces.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Ceannaire

The collapse of the supportive Lebanese goverment and the Arab League's move to have Assad replaced by the American leader of the Syrian opposition Hitta in Syria's representation in the body both will make a Western invasion more likely.

Care to explain why you think invasion is more likely now? I’m agnostic on that issue myself at the moment. No doubt, given recent developments, that confusion has increased, but I don’t see who is going to do any invading anytime soon..

As a general rule the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Assad has been deprived of an ally, making him a more vulnerable target. In deciding whether or not to invade, the ease with which Assad could be overthrown is a key variable, and depends on factors like this.

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

Originally Posted by Count Bobulescu

Care to explain why you think invasion is more likely now? I’m agnostic on that issue myself at the moment. No doubt, given recent developments, that confusion has increased, but I don’t see who is going to do any invading anytime soon..

Re: Prospect of Invasion of Syria

In a critical indication of growing U.S. military involvement in the civil war in Syria, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered the deployment of more American troops to Jordan.Hagel announced the deployment, which was first reported on CNN, in a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.He said the troops will work alongside Jordanian forces to "improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios."The troops, which will number up to 200, are from the headquarters of the 1st Armored Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, two Defense Department officials told CNN.....n town ruled by rebelsThe deployment "creates an additional capability" beyond what has been there, one official said, and will give the United States the ability to "potentially form a joint task force for military operations, if ordered."The new deployment will include communications and intelligence specialists who will assist the Jordanians and "be ready for military action" if President Obama were to order it, the official said.

Last edited by C. Flower; 20-04-2013 at 09:24 PM.

“ We cannot withdraw our cards from the game. Were we as silent and mute as stones, our very passivity would be an act. ”— Jean-Paul Sartre

The article goes on to state that $117m of 'non-lethal' aid has already been given by the United States to the rebels. However:

Originally Posted by the Guardian

President Barack Obama has said he has no plans to send weapons or give lethal aid to the rebels, despite pressure from Congress and even some administration advisers.

Also, the article references the preference of the UK and French govts for arming the rebels. It says there's support in some US govt. and Obama administration circles for this approach, but there is opposition from the Netherlands and German govts on the grounds that it would worsen things on the ground. There is this curious unattributed statement in the report:

Originally Posted by the Guardian

The US is not opposed to other countries arming the rebels, provided there are assurances the weapons do not get to extremist groups that have gained ground in the conflict.

Although Kerry is mentioned immediately afterward at the start of the next paragraph, this statement is left hanging in the air. Is it from 'State Dept. sources', or is it the reporter's own surmise?

"It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts."
— Buenaventura Durruti